Has anyone noticed this? When Capt. Callahan meets Quincy after they got the fingerprints off the briefcase, Quincy says "Jim Torance was last scene in a moving van." Who could have told the police that? It was Williams on the truck, of course, and if somebody spotted him on the truck why would the police get a report that it was Torance? That makes NO sense. Disappointing mistake for such a good film.
shareThe cops have matched Torrance's fingerprints on the briefcase from when he tried to open it, and then threw it down the hill after Williams.
They aren't surprised to find Williams' fingerprints on it, since it was his briefcase, and they don't know he's the last person to have touched it. Also, Torrance is a criminal, and Williams is an upstanding and wealthy citizen. Why would Williams have a reason to hide?
So the cops conclude, mistakenly but not illogically, that it was Torrance who jumped into the moving van and hitched an incognito ride. Not a "mistake" in the plot or script at all.
last 2 dvds: Jeopardy (1953) & Panic in the Streets (1950)
Here's a bigger problem: Why would the husband Walter be charged with killing the boyfriend Jim when the 2 moving van guys saw the younger Jim driving away in the empty convertable car?
shareThat's what I wondered too - why weren't they called to testify? And how does his wife expecting to meet her lover prove that she plotted to kill her husband? If she made plans to meet her lover at a hotel when she knew her husband would be out of town, but her husband picked the lover up, unbeknownst to her, she would still plan on meeting at the hotel. There was really no proof that she was involved.
share[deleted]
The movie made little sense from the moment Torrance chose a tire iron to kill a man with one blow, not check if he was dead, then roll him down an easy bank. Judging by the prior scenes, the road had some deadly drop-offs.
The OP is right about the movers having a clear view of a younger man alone in a convertible. And, since when do moving vans not check the back of their trucks to see that that tailgate is down and rugs are perilously hanging out in view? Nevertheless, there are many reasons to like these oldies from the 30's and 40's. Just put your logical thinking on hold and enjoy the feel of an era long ago.
That's what I wondered too - why weren't they called to testify? And how does his wife expecting to meet her lover prove that she plotted to kill her husband? If she made plans to meet her lover at a hotel when she knew her husband would be out of town, but her husband picked the lover up, unbeknownst to her, she would still plan on meeting at the hotel. There was really no proof that she was involved.
[deleted]
Yes, there are holes in the plot and the whole thing stretches credulity, but I found this movie much more enjoyable than I expected to. It was a pleasure seeing Ella Raines and Brian Donleavy in roles that varied from so many others they had played. And I disagree with the OP about Donleavy's age. They don't specifically say he is 25. The landlady in Larkspur says something general about being less judgmental at 50 than 25 but when she calls him young man earlier, he says thanks for calling me a young man. His wife was certainly playing at least 34 or so, so I figured he was in his late thirties.
share^^Right. Ella Raines' mother is not referring to Donleavy when she mentions having more wisdom than someone who is 25: she is referring to her daughter, Ella Raines' character.
share